Abramski v US cert petition ("straw purchase" for otherwise legal buyer)

[Brooklyn]

It has to be a specific person at the time of the 4473, not a generalized "eventually I might sell down my collection." Of course, dealing without a license is something else entirely.

Would this include a child not yet of age?

And since thus suposition is not in the law Ivan going to bet that it will not be honored should the need arise...
.

 

[ericoak]

So this means if I had bought a SW 1911 a couple of years ago as a Christmas present to my Dad and had no intention of keeping it, but instead legally transferring it to him, I would have committed a felony?

 

[danb]

Gifts are perfectly legal.

While we are on the topic, I accept all gifts of firearms and I am Not Disapproved...

 

[Brooklyn]

So this means if I had bought a SW 1911 a couple of years ago as a Christmas present to my Dad and had no intention of keeping it, but instead legally transferring it to him, I would have committed a felony?

Ianal. I would not do it after this ruling.. the net effect is that a legal transfer is not proof that you did not make a straw purchase... maybe some one can explain to be how to do this safely.. maybe...

 

[fidelity]

So this means if I had bought a SW 1911 a couple of years ago as a Christmas present to my Dad and had no intention of keeping it, but instead legally transferring it to him, I would have committed a felony?

Thought crime. You would be innocent if the thought to gift only occurred after the purchase. Pretty stupid as one puts forethought into which gift to purchase.

If in the same state and a gift recipient is not a minor, best not to fill out the 4473 and only let the recipient do it for pick up at the FFL.

 

[Brooklyn]

Gifts are perfectly legal.

While we are on the topic, I accept all gifts of firearms and I am Not Disapproved...

Persons will be charged for 'gift' transfers under the theory that they were in fact compensated in some way. The minor case is interesting since at the time of the first 4473 they were prohibited.. and the issue will be intent... the later transfer will only be lawful if the gov and the courts believe the first transfer was lawful. Again the 4473 will not indemify.... that is clear..

Also payment terms do not bear on the question at all.. if I buy a gun in my name and give it away the next day its still a straw purchase... period. If I do that becuse of extortion.. its still a straw purchase..

I know of no method to lawfully transfer a gun that is safe from government second guessing...esp if there is any prior relationship between the parties...

You may beat the rap but you will not beat the ride. ...

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Frank Ettin at TFL breaks it down

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5862302&postcount=29

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin:

You're buying the gun for yourself (you're the actual buyer) if --

1. You're buying the gun with the intention of giving it to someone as a gift.

2. You're buying the gun with the intention of keeping it, but later you decide to sell it.

3. You're buying the gun to sell, but you have no buyer.

In that case you have to find a buyer and are taking a risk that you will be able to sell it to someone at a price acceptable to you.

But you are not the actually buyer (making it a straw purchase) if --

You've made prior arrangements with a particular person that you will buy the gun and then transfer it to him, and he:

1. Gives you the money for it, or

2. Agrees to reimburse you.

In that case, based on well established legal principles, you are not buying the gun for yourself. Rather you are buying the gun as the agent of (or proxy for) the actual purchaser.

So since you (we hope) know what you are doing, you know if it's an illegal straw purchase.

Yes, it's a question of intent. But many crimes involve questions of intent. Prosecutors frequently successfully use all sorts of circumstantial evidence to prove intent to the satisfaction of juries.

(Bolding, numbering, slight punctuation, and underlining added by me for clarity absent original context)

 

[Brooklyn]

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5862302&postcount=29

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin:



(Bolding, numbering, slight punctuation, and underlining added by me for clarity absent original context)

I am not going to risk it. He is only right about what is a straw purchase not what is not..

Mark it.. its coming... head in the sand is not a good play..

 

[fiddletown]

The ATF's "interpretation" is about as lawful as enforcing laws regarding "interpretative dance". I asked for the law language to prove a point....

Actually, the Supreme Court in Abramski confirmed the ATF's interpretation as the correct application of 18 USC 922(a)(6).

And furthermore, it's useful to note that nothing has changed. The ATF has been using that interpretation since 1992.

 

[Brooklyn]

Actually, the Supreme Court in Abramski confirmed the ATF's interpretation as the correct application of 18 USC 922(a)(6).

And furthermore, it's useful to note that nothing has changed. The ATF has been using that interpretation since 1992.

See Dread Scott. We still have the right to call the court out. Sorry.

 

[fiddletown]

See Dread Scott. We still have the right to call the court out. Sorry.

Sorry, but Dred Scott is a dead issue for a variety of reasons including, most specifically, the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment.

It's really not the proper role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. The result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to some. We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could be entirely within the power of Congress to enact.

But in the Constitution the Founding Fathers assigned the role of deciding cases arising under the Constitution and federal law to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,...

Of course, if law and precedent yield an unacceptable result, it's the province of legislatures to change the law. An example was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) as an example of this phenomenon. It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result. "Checks and balances" at work.

So if folks think that the result of Abramski isn't right, Congress could change the law. So anyone bothered by how this turned out can get politically active and try to elect representatives who will be amenable to changing the law.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Any re-write of the law would presumably rely on the 4473 forms and appropriate FFL transfers between state residents to satisfy the government's interest.

In this case, for example, there was no attempt (after the sale) to hide the identity of the gun's new owner. Even though that would clearly satisfied the government's interest in knowing about the ownership transfer, the second FFL transfer did not immunize the appellant from the initial deception on the application in the first place. The court just followed the law the way it is written and historically interpreted.

 

[Brooklyn]

Sorry, but Dred Scott is a dead issue for a variety of reasons including, most specifically, the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment.

It's really not the proper role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. The result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to some. We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could be entirely within the power of Congress to enact.

But in the Constitution the Founding Fathers assigned the role of deciding cases arising under the Constitution and federal law to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

​

Of course, if law and precedent yield an unacceptable result, it's the province of legislatures to change the law. An example was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) as an example of this phenomenon. It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result. "Checks and balances" at work.

So if folks think that the result of Abramski isn't right, Congress could change the law. So anyone bothered by how this turned out can get politically active and try to elect representatives who will be amenable to changing the law.

Being such a scholar you should know that judicial review is not in the Constitution. Or that precedent is just a fancy word for the last 200 years of f,,k ups

And no you are no doubt proud of the way the court dutifully failed to honor the 14th amendment for oh just 100 years. Never mind the 10th.

No its clear that you have no idea how much power the court has claimed which it does not have -- but no matter...

No find the clause in the constitution that says the Federal Government can regulate the private sale of anything, let alone firearms.

Funny there a lot of folks on the net copying and pasting verbatim that same


really not the proper role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. noise -- funny how that does not apply to The direct action of the voters in a referendum if the court does not like the policy..

Perhaps there are folks dumb enough to swallow this Horse shit and you are welcome to give it a go -- its your time to waste..

But do not worry its congress we are aiming at..

And I repeat we do not have to respect the court and neither does the next administration, or interestingly, this one, assuming he does not like the result -- like citizen united. Nor it seems is he compelled to enforce the laws he does not like -- amazing how that works for one side of the debate but not the other --truly it is .

 

[fiddletown]

Being such a scholar you should know that judicial review is not in the Constitution. Or that precedent is just a fancy word for the last 200 years of f,,k ups

And no you are no doubt proud of the way the court dutifully failed to honor the 14th amendment for oh just 100 years. Never mind the 10th.

No its clear that you have no ideas how much power the court has claimed which it does not have -- but no matter...

No find the clause in the constitution that says the Federal Government can regulate the private sale of anything, let alone firearms.

Funny there a lot of folks on the net copying and pasting verbatim that same


really not the proper role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. noise -- funny how that does not apply to The direct action of the voters in a referendum if the court does not like the policy..

Perhaps there are folks dumb enough to swallow this Horse shit and you are welcome to give it a go -- its your time to waste..

But do not worry its congress we are aiming at..

And I repeat we do not have to respect the court and neither does the next administration, or interestingly, this one, assuming he does not like the result -- like citizen united. Nor it seems is he compelled to enforce the laws he does not like -- amazing how that works for one side of the debate but not the other --truly it is .

Enjoy your delusions, but the world has functioned and will continue to do so without regards to your opinions. In the meantime, some of us have accomplished things in the real world.

 

[Brooklyn]

Enjoy your delusions, but the world has functioned and will continue to do so without regards to your opinions. In the meantime, some of us have accomplished things in the real world.

I guess that means goodbye, so sad, but my mom is calling anyway

 

[kcbrown]

Enjoy your delusions, but the world has functioned and will continue to do so without regards to your opinions. In the meantime, some of us have accomplished things in the real world.

The world has managed to function in the face of innumerable tyrants, dictators, and otherwise incredibly evil people. Hence, that it does so is of no consequence here. If the above is the best you can do in the face of tyranny in our neighborhood being pointed out to you, then I have to wonder exactly what you could possibly mean by "accomplished things" here.

As for the "real world", well, in the real world, evil wins by default, and it is only through massive effort that the end result is anything else. This is so because the universe has evil (chaos, death, etc.) baked into its fabric. If you suggest that we should simply stand idly by and watch as entities such as the Supreme Court and the executive branch which it apparently so reveres tear our liberties to shreds without so much as even calling it out as Brooklyn is doing here, then you are part of the problem. And I would like to think that I know better than to think that last.

I'm a stark realist, and the real world is (I dare say) a far darker place than even you believe it to be, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let that prevent me from pointing out how things are wrong so that some will at least have some idea of what needs fixing, and I will happily come to the defense of others who, like Brooklyn here, do the same.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Enjoy your delusions, but the world has functioned and will continue to do so without regards to your opinions. In the meantime, some of us have accomplished things in the real world.

Hmmm….you live in San Francisco, which is completely surrounded for hundreds of miles by….the rest of California. What "real world" are you referring to?

 

[fiddletown]

The world has managed to function in the face of innumerable tyrants, dictators, and otherwise incredibly evil people. Hence, that it does so is of no consequence here. ...

Good God. I thought I was done with your silliness when I put you on "ignore" at Calguns. I guess I'll have to ignore you here as well.

Hmmm….you live in San Francisco, which is completely surrounded for hundreds of miles by….the rest of California. What "real world" are you referring to?

During by career when actively practicing I dealt with legal matters all across the country, as well as federal matters.

 

[Rack&Roll]

You seem to regard the U.S Supreme Court's job as simply "applying the law" based on precedent.

So, why, in the modern SCOTUS era, are 5 Justices "applying the law" one way and 4 Justices "applying the law" another way in case after case after case?

If "applications" were neutral, every decision would be an easy 9-0 correct? How much more evidence do any of us need that SCOTUS is now a hopeless political body?

 

[That guy Jeff]

You seem to regard the U.S Supreme Court's job as simply "applying the law" based on precedent.

So, why, in the modern SCOTUS era, are 5 Justices "applying the law" one way and 4 Justices "applying the law" another way in case after case after case?

If "applications" were neutral, every decision would be an easy 9-0 correct? How much more evidence do any of us need that SCOTUS is now a hopeless political body?

By that logic, it has always been a political body.